Originally posted by HFRorbisThey are equivalent, but not equal.
I read that 1 Knight is worth 3,25 pawns and that 1 Bishop is worth 3,4 pawns
what do you think ?
is 1 Bishop worth 1 Knight or not ?
A bishop pair is generally better than a pair of knights, but a knight works better with a queen. In open positions, bishops are usually better (but watch the color squares the pawns are on, if they are blocked). Knights are usually better in closed.
The knight vs. bishop imbalance is one of the critical keys in chess. The better you understand it, the better your capacity for play.
Originally posted by Wulebgrwhats chess?
They are equivalent, but not equal.
A bishop pair is generally better than a pair of knights, but a knight works better with a queen. In open positions, bishops are usually better (but watch the color squares the pawns are on, if they are blocked). Knights are usually better in closed.
The knight vs. bishop imbalance is one of the critical keys in chess. The better you understand it, the better your capacity for play.
Originally posted by HFRorbisWith chess progression you won't find a really useful answer to this question, but rather the question will go away.
I read that 1 Knight is worth 3,25 pawns and that 1 Bishop is worth 3,4 pawns
what do you think ?
is 1 Bishop worth 1 Knight or not ?
Originally posted by LanndonKaneNot necessarily. Two things that are equivalent can share the same traits, values, or effects without everything being the same across the board.
Im pretty sure "equivalent" and "equal" are identical in definition.
For example: A square with sides of 2 units could be considered equivalent to a triangle with a base of 2 units and a height of 4 units because they have identical areas, but they certainly could not be considered equal, or congruent.
The knight and the bishop can be considered equivalent because of their identical effects on the chess board, yet they most certainly cannot be considered equal because those effects occur in different situations.
from what i've learned bishops are good at making the kingside weak when the queen attacks with it and then after the pawns have moved the knights have key squares to go to. bishops can create a lot of damage but a bishop doing the maximum damage it can do is nowhere near the damage one knight can do at its maximum.
Originally posted by HFRorbisNot. It all depends of the position.
I read that 1 Knight is worth 3,25 pawns and that 1 Bishop is worth 3,4 pawns
what do you think ?
is 1 Bishop worth 1 Knight or not ?
A pawn is considered worth 1 points, but what is the pawn worth when it is on the 7th rank and about to promote to a queen?, not just 1 point if I may say so.
Same as a bishop and a knight. If a knight is about to mate the opponents king it is worth a lot more.
Mechanical points adding has no point and meaning if you don't take the position in the whole into consideration.
1 edit
A strong Knight outpost is often worth a Rook.
a bad Bishop [trapped] is of little more value than that of a pawn. And a Rook without any open, or semi-open files is pretty damn useless.
The value of the peieces very much depends on the position, that is obvoius....sometimes, a Queen easily prevails over Two Rooks, and at other times, it is helpless. therefore to simply stick to numerical guidlines (pawn=1, bishop =3, etc) is simply absurd.
Originally posted by HFRorbisI do not know about that math. It will be very bad for a Knight or Bishop to have to take on three pawns. Maybe at the start of the game you can try to apply that kind of math.
I read that 1 Knight is worth 3,25 pawns and that 1 Bishop is worth 3,4 pawns
what do you think ?
is 1 Bishop worth 1 Knight or not ?
1 edit
Originally posted by LanndonKaneNot identical; not in all usages.
Im pretty sure "equivalent" and "equal" are identical in definition.
Equivalent in math:
Geom. equal in area, volume, etc., but not of the same shape
Hence, the bishop and knight are of the same value, but do not reach this value in the same manner (and one will usually fit a given a situation better than the other).
edit: thesonofsaul, a gentleman and scholar, already made this point.